Marriage dependent on rules

I hope this will be one of many letters that answer the question in Dallas Duff’s letter (“Why oppose gay marriage?” March 9).

Is marriage between one man and one woman any different than homosexual marriage? Please consider that restriction maximizes freedom. When people sit down to play a new game, the first thing they ask is, “What are the rules?” If we are told, “There are no rules, we just play however we want,” there is confusion and chaos. The rules define the objective and maximize the pleasure.

When God said a man leaves his father and mother and holds fast to his wife, and they become one flesh, He set a standard that many claim is too restrictive. But God’s plan of one man and one woman actually releases us to enjoy maximum freedom. Within that boundary, husband and wife can experience optimal unity, lifelong commitment, sexual fulfillment, sense of family, authenticity and wholeness.

Consider as well: If Americans change the definition of marriage, who will choose the new definition? Hollywood, politicians, clergy, teenagers, educators, doctors, lawyers, etc? Which of these has the authority to define a relationship that is foundational to the well-being of a nation? As we continue on the postmodern track, someone will want to be the first to offer marriage with no restrictions – marry whoever you want: man, woman, child or a combination. The result will be chaos and confusion.

We can look to one another as gods for the answers, or we can look to Creator God of the Bible. He best defines the objective of marriage and maximizes the pleasure in marriage.

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for
following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and
comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are
automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some
comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules,
click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

Is it because it's guaranteed web traffic? Is it because the Chronicle editorial staff really don't like the idea of equal rights? Do you like to make your readers uncomfortable when they open their newspaper? Do you think it's wise to make sure that gay, bisexual, and straight people alike that support equal human rights guaranteed by God and the Constitution of the United States feel like their community is against them?

Would you publish a letter from someone that doesn't think a white person should marry a black person? What about a letter from someone that doesn't think women should be allowed to vote? What about someone that thinks the disabled shouldn't be allowed to enter churches?

You know that's in the Bible too, right? Leviticus 21:16-23? Or are we just picking and choosing what Bible verses we want to follow? Are we ignoring Leviticus 27:1-4 that says women are objectively and financially worth less to God than men? What about Leviticus 19:19? Should we get a mob of people and torch a department store for selling fabrics of mixed fiber?

How many letters to the editor, hateful internet comments, suicides of gay and bisexual youth, and homophobically motivated murders does it take to get it through that your slippery-slope arguments about marrying inanimate objects and sexually abusing non-consenting, sexually immature children are not only dehumanizing to your fellow gay and bisexual American citizens, but are the exact same arguments used against interracial marriage?

Do you like to make Augusta and the South look ridiculous? Do you have a personal interest in sabotaging this city and this community, when we literally have children killing themselves in our neighborhoods because someone told them they would burn in Hell because they like boys and not girls, or both, or vice-versa? How many more kids have to die? A hundred? A thousand?

Every loving couple should have a fair shot at asking themselves that, independent of other people's notions. Let everyone have the same set of options and benefits to consider. Give everyone the option of no-fault divorce, too; I've served on a jury for a contested divorce trial before, and I never want to experience that again.

Beyond that, consider that certain of us find ourselves recognizing a mistake before it happens and, ironically enough, later in life, find that those we love most, have no interest in getting a license from the state. The love's either there, or it isn't; God would know better than human government, don't you think?

I have stated this many times but no response! Our cultural definitions and institutions are designed for heterosexuals families! The assumption is that they well then have children. The laws are designed to provide stability for the raising of th children! If the marriage ends the primary concern is the children. Two hundred years of case law and precedent. A husband recently divorced his wife. He found out the three year old child isn't his. Well he claimed to be the father and his name is on the birth certificate so he gets to pay child support. A lesbian couple divorced after one of the lesbians had a child, the spermatozoa donor is now on the hook for child support! Do we throw a wayall our legal precedent and crest a brave new world! Will gee folks so much the has done has worked so well such as the war on poverty and the department of education. A bunch of dysfunctional politicians and liberals should be able to create an institution more worthy of the 5th level of hell in the Divine Comedy than providing stable families. It will probably turn out worse than Detroit!

great letter...but as usual great exergerations by those who oppose so they argue the extreme and to make it look normal..so im truly agitated by equating sexual preference to equal rights of the blacks..there is a right and wrong ...and if you choose to ignore it, it will not goe away...

"What about someone that thinks the disabled shouldn't be allowed to enter churches?

You know that's in the Bible too, right? Leviticus 21:16-23?"

AGAIN, another misinterpretation of scripture by someone who doesn't have a clue. The scripture in Leviticus that is mentioned is rules set up for the children of Israel to keep the Art of the Covenant holy. This has nothing to do with today and someone with a physical or mental disability to enter church. Why is it that people forget that we have a Redeemer who came and provided a way for us to have a personal relationship with God. They want to hang back under the old covenant because it's convenient to use to spread false testimony.

Thank you for clarifying that we are no longer bound by the Law of Moses, but the Law of Christ. This, in fact, SUPPORTS my argument, because Christ said nothing about homosexuality in His teachings.

"And you speak of equal rights?"

Look, ACES can print whatever they want. If they want to print a letter to the editor about how Adolf Hitler really wasn't that bad of a guy, they certainly can. But it wouldn't go over very well with 99% of Chronicle readers. They could also print a letter about how blacks are genetically inferior to whites, and unfortunately, that would probably find much more reader acceptance than anyone wants to admit, and definitely a lot more than the 1% who wouldn't have a problem with a pro-Hitler letter.

But they don't print letters about how great Hitler is, and they certainly don't print letters about racial inferiority. They don't try to "keep the debate going" because there isn't one. They don't give print space to "the opposing viewpoint" because virtually nobody argues against the objective truth of history. They have chosen not to, although they are perfectly in their rights to do so. And I'd like to think they don't because they know it's hateful and wrong and divisive.

But maybe the Chronicle should print a letter about someone's opposition to letting women speak in public. You know, "equal rights". Let's have a "for" and an "against".

The militant homosexual lobbyists are just after the lower tax rates and lower health insurance premiums available to married people. These benefits discriminate against single people. The proper approach would be to eliminate the discriminatory benefits — have a single income tax column for individuals with no distinction whether you are married or single. Then there will be no more clamor for same-sex marriage.

ICL.....don't you know....the left is in favor of freedom of speech as long as you express THEIR views, and equal rights as long as the people in question are liberals. No one else's rights or opinions are to be legally allowed.

as my grand dad told me years ago..there is no one more intolerant than a self proclaimed tolerant liberal..and b/4 some accuse me of southern heritage..i was born in northern minnesota and so was my grand dad....but whether southern or midwestern right is right and wrong is wrong....and name calling with hysterical exaggerations are not going to persuade many...if any....and i do believe our rights come from GOD...inalienable rights?? rights written by man are subject to change..

karradur.....when did I express objection. I simply was pointing out how people who claim to be tolerant seem to be the most intolerant people some times. Perhaps you should READ what I post, and not assume you know what I'm thinking. It seems you are doing the same thing to RMSHEFF.....Making claims that he posted something that he didn't post. This type of debate sure makes it easier for you......no need to debate what they actually say......that would require acknowledging facts.

So, as a libertarian, you think the government shouldn't intervene in marriage, but you also take carcraft's "evidence" about gay people as factually accurate without even bothering to click the links and find out for yourself.

You can't get upset with me when you didn't even read what he linked to.

What I feel about marriage has nothing to do with factual studies and statistics. You see....I don't let emotion rule my logic.

And there you go again. "without even bothering to click the links and find out for yourself." You simply can't just keep making things up to support your argument. I read the links, yet you, with no knowledge at all, claim, as if fact, that I didn't. Your method of debate is undeniable difficult to refute. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts.